When I started playing 10/7 DB I had similar thoughts (although they were primarily focused on the risk tradeoff in holding 3A vs the sure win FH ... a nominal EV benefit with a significant risk increment).
Over time, however, I found that going for the $50 "sure win" didn't make much of a dent against the variance of the balance of the game. Ultimately, I decided to just indulge in the thrill of the 3A draw, with greater satisfaction.
--- In vpFREE@yahoogroups.com, <vpfree@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I'm sure for many players this is an obvious, no-brainer, one of the first rules you learned, sort of thing. You keep the Aces, duh...
But after having it come up more than a few times during practice with WinPoker on the iPad, I disagree (at least for many players).
Let's say you are playing 10/7 DB at the $1 level and your bankroll is ok but not extravagant for the game, with an additional 0.20% back in comps/cashback. And a guy sitting next to you offered you a game that returns 101.15% with a little over a third the variance with no comps/cashback but you have to play it at the $10 level.
The choice to keep three aces is agreeing to play a game at $50 a hand that returns 101.15% with variance of 10.
The choice to keep the full house is to choose to play your original game at $5 per hand, returning 100.3% or so (adding comps/cashback and deducting for errors) with variance of 28.
I don't claim to be able to do bankroll calculations in my head, but I think there are many people who would consider themselves sufficiently bankrolled for $5 a hand 10/7 DB returning 100.3% that would not consider themselves bankrolled for $50 a hand at 101.15%. I don't doubt some of you would jump at the chance to play $50 a hand 101.15% with variance 10 and would be right to do so. But many of us, myself included might wipe out their bankroll waiting for the long run to show up.
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (2) |
